Watch Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Bejo and Uggie foul up in a blooper reel from ‘The Artist’

Typically blooper reels feature actors breaking out of their created roles. There may be some unforeseen accident on set, a stray boom falling into frame, performers losing their handle on the dialogue (or language in general), unexpected bouts of Tourette syndrome, uncontrolled laughing during the funeral scene or otherwise unusable, though amusing, takes. But it is always clear that, for that moment, Fred Friendly (or whoever the character is) has dropped away and George Clooney (or whichever actor) has reemerged.

What is striking about the blooper reel from Michel Hazanavicius’s “The Artist” that Coming Soon made available yesterday is that it is difficult to discern the moment where George Valentin/Peppy Miller disappear and Jean Dujardin/Bérénice Bejo emerge. Sure, when Uggie the dog fails to follow a command, it is obvious that the shot has not gone as planned (it is also more than a little bit adorable). When poor Bejo face plants in the midst of a sequence, we know it wasn”t an “I meant to do that.” But the distinction between actor and character is infinitesimal at best.

The featurette evokes the same sense of frothy warmth that the film itself does. It is charming, light and vivaciously stylized. The players carry with them a sweetness and charisma that makes the viewer want to watch and laugh with them. That inherently enchanting quality serves and supports the film’s appeal. But the blooper reel also provides a reminder of why I have been so perplexed by the overwhelmingly positive awards season response to the film. With 10 Oscar nominations and three Golden Globe wins, “The Artist” is (and has been throughout the duration of the precursor season) one of the unequivocal darlings of the year.

It is endearingly engaging, but fails to evoke a deeper visceral or emotional response. There is an airy, easy quality to it that makes it incredibly enjoyable to watch and communicates the director’s enthusiasm for cinema. But there is no real sense of sophistication or palpable, significant themes being plumbed.

The choice to pull out the performances has been particularly befuddling. Lively and winsome as they absolutely are, they are also, by nature of the script, story and manner of film, quite broad. With the vulnerable, nuanced and painfully raw performances available this season, the nominations for “The Artist” feel like another example of the remarkable power and scope of The Weinstein Company”s marketing arm. If there was an Academy Award for running Academy Award campaigns, they would be the Meryl Streep of that field.

In any event, I did find “The Artist” to be charismatic and pleasant, so for a glance at the outtakes of what was (for me) one of the feel-good, if not soul-affecting, films of the year, have a look at the video below.

For year-round entertainment news and commentary follow @JRothC on Twitter.

Around The Web

Join The Discussion: Log In With

The idea that this is some insubstantial little trifle with no “significant themes to plumb” is absolute garbage, and is an unfortunate perpetuation of an untrue criticism that’s been bandied about ever since the film’s gained so much acclaim.

Same goes for the performances – Dujardin’s and Bejo’s nominations are among the most deserving of the year. I can’t imagine how anyone could say otherwise. You think it’s easy to act without words? If anything it’s harder.

By: Roth Cornet

01.28.2012 @ 10:07 PM

I didn’t say it was easy to act without words. That is your interpretation. I said the performances, were by nature of the story, necessarily broad.

By: Roth Cornet

01.28.2012 @ 10:21 PM

Also, I just need to say that I am really confused by the hostility I sense in this comment. We are allowed to have a different take away from a film. That is the nature of art and it continues to bother and sadden me that the go-to response to a divergent opinion in any arena these days is hostility. I mean my goodness — I said I liked the film. I do not find it to be deep. There are films that I would prefer to see getting attention this year, and they may or may not be films that you enjoy. I’d be far more interested in hearing how this film moved and effected you than a response that acts as if I have made a personal attack on you and your opinion. I have not done so.

By: KristopherTapley

01.28.2012 @ 10:52 PM

“You think it’s easy to act without words?”

They actually didn’t act without words. It’s a movie on mute.

By: JLPatt

01.29.2012 @ 12:20 AM

The “hostility” obviously isn’t directed at you, but at the argument itself which has become so repetitive and regurgitated it’s just irritating by now.

By: Jonnybon

01.29.2012 @ 1:03 AM

I have to agree wholeheartedly with JLPATT. I just don’t understand where this article came from.

By: Andrej

01.29.2012 @ 1:24 AM

This article came from a blooper reel of The Artist. Have you guys seen it yet? The bits with Uggie are pretty funny.

By: Roth Cornet

01.29.2012 @ 2:49 AM

What’s interesting is that I said several positive things, and those seem to be completely skimmed over. I am fine that some people responded to the film in such a profound manner. I enjoyed it, quite a bit as I mention, it just isn’t something that got to me in my guts. And yes, the bits with Uggie in the blooper reel are adorable :).

By: Brian Toohey

01.28.2012 @ 11:08 PM

I think the performances are simultaneously broad, yet grounded and real. Striking a balance between the two is an incredibly hard balancing act, and I don’t think the author of this article understands that or is giving credit where credit is due. Also, it’s too bad that for her it “fails to evoke a deeper visceral or emotional response.” It absolutely achieved this for me, and for many people I know. That, again, is what makes the movie so brilliant– that it can be both an airy delight in parts, and then in other parts connect on a much deeper level. Obviously all of this is lost on Ruth Cornet, but she’s unfairly faulting the film by leveling her inability to enjoy it as a criticism of the film, instead of simply realizing it’s merely her specific (lack of) experience with the film. Sorry you weren’t able to connect with what I consider to be the best film of the year, Ruth.

By: Roth Cornet

01.29.2012 @ 2:43 AM

I’m glad you had a positive response to the film. The fact that I enjoyed it, but do not count it as my favorite of the year does not denote a “lack of experience” however. One persons experience does not supersede another’s. It’s unusual, but my name actually is Roth btw.

By: Roth Cornet

01.29.2012 @ 3:02 AM

By the way, my impressions are my own and subjective but they are also born of five years of acting training, four years of film school and nearly a decade working in this industry. Thanks.

By: Brian Toohey

01.29.2012 @ 8:04 AM

The problem with your article, Roth (and I apologize for getting your name wrong) is that you state the following paragraph as if it were fact: “It is endearingly engaging, but fails to evoke a deeper visceral or emotional response. There is an airy, easy quality to it that makes it incredibly enjoyable to watch and communicates the director’s enthusiasm for cinema. But there is no real sense of sophistication or palpable, significant themes being plumbed.” And it is not fact. It is your opinion. And one that most people seem not to share. You’re certainly entitled to it, but it might be better to present it as your opinion and not as statement of fact, particularly when you’re in the minority. Also, you seem to have misread my comment about your “(lack of) experience” in not connecting with The Artist. I simply meant that you did not have the experience of connecting with it on a deep level, and that this was YOUR experience (or because you didn’t connect with it, your lack of having that experience). And that it is not one shared by all (or even, seemingly, most). But I was NOT taking a shot at your lack of experience in the industry; I’m not sure why you read it that way, but it was not intended. I, too, have had my share of films that I’ve disagreed with the public opinion on. I’ve learned, however, not to present my opinion as some kind of gospel truth. My main problem with your article is the way the entire thing reads as if you’re faulting The Artist for being shallow and frothy, and disregarding it. I would argue that it’s not limited to being shallow and frothy, and that it is many-sided and a very varied, rich film. I think when you’re in the business of reviewing things, from time to time you (one) can fall into the trap of becoming judgmental and critical. One can get so busy grading things, that it becomes clinical and detached, and you lose the passion and joy for the medium in the first place. At times like these, it helps to take a step back and rediscover love for film, or literature, or music, or what have you. Sometimes, when a film gets very successful, particularly if a person sees it after the hype, there can be the possibility that it doesn’t meet expectations when nothing can live up to said expectations. Or perhaps neither of these scenarios has anything to do with why you didn’t like it very much or connect with it; it doesn’t really matter, you are entitled to your opinion. But please don’t phrase your writing as if it’s a failing of the film when obviously it’s working quite well and connecting deeply with plenty of people.

By: KristopherTapley

01.29.2012 @ 9:23 AM

Brian: Lots of things are stated as fact when it comes to stating opinions. If you need your hand held with an “in my opinion” addendum to every little nugget offered up in this world, you’ll barely have time for legitimate conversation. Concentrate on her points, not your silly feelings of being slighted by the gall of her too-succinct-for-your-comfort phrasing. Are we gonna play semantics games all day or are we going to talk about movies?

Kris, okay, now you’re just being, well, kind of an asshole. No, I don’t need my hand held about people’s opinions. But my entire point is that there’s a time and a place for them. And obviously I’m not alone here, because its irritated a portion of the readership, enough for you to be somewhat taken aback by the response. So before you jump on the readership for having a reaction and actually trying to have a dialogue and explain the problem to you guys, it might be better to try to understand that reaction and the problem. If I didn’t really like Hitfix to begin with, I wouldn’t be bothering, and honestly, there’s no other movie site out there where I would be. I’d just move on– from the article and possibly from the author. So in a nutshell, the problem is this: the place for opinions would be in a review, not in an article that’s supposed to be introducing a blooper reel. That should be objective. If you’re going to introduce opinions there, they should be stated as such. To state an opinion there, in a forum that’s supposed to be declarative and presenting a piece of media, and to do so as if it’s a statement of fact describing the film, and as if it’s something accepted as commonplace about the film’s quality, i.e. “this movie is a trifle and doesn’t achieve anything of substance” as one might say “this movie is science fiction” is a bit underhanded (I’d say devious if I thought it was intentional, which I don’t) and lacks journalistic integrity. I think that ultimately this is what has some feathers in a ruffle– the fact that an opinion slighting a movie is being presented as objective information, and not as opinion, in a non-review format where mostly people who actually enjoyed said film are reading to see additional media about the film. If you don’t agree with this, that’s okay. But I’m trying to do you guys a solid by explaining why it elicited this reaction in me and in other people. Next time I’ll just not waste my time, and I’ll avoid the staff members here who like to pick fights with the readership. From your responses on this page, you obviously have a problem discerning the difference between opinion and fact, and have come to view your opinion as fact, which it is not.

By: Paul Outlaw

01.29.2012 @ 1:32 AM

“… fails to evoke a deeper visceral or emotional response.”

I have heard the same criticism leveled at Shame, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, The Help, Inception, I’m Not There, to name but a few. This is something very subjective, and I don’t think you can call The Artist unworthy of the awards attention it’s gotten just because you weren’t affected by it the same way others may have been. Now, if you said that it was a crappy or otherwise offensive film, I could certainly see your point.

By: Roth Cornet

01.29.2012 @ 2:54 AM

Of course it’s subjective. This is my subjective opinion.

By: HoustonRufus

01.29.2012 @ 2:15 AM

I understand where Roth is coming from, though I think I liked The Artist better than she did. It’s a film you either find very entertaining or you don’t. It worked for me. It’s not my favorite film of the year, but I admire what they were able to pull off.

By: KristopherTapley

01.29.2012 @ 2:50 AM

Hey, a sane person!

By: Roth Cornet

01.29.2012 @ 2:59 AM

Thank you :). And you know I actually did find it quite entertaining as I mention. I just felt that there were other films this year that had more happening cinematically, in terms of performance and in terms of what they were attempting to communicate. Thank you though :). Appreciate it.

By: HoustonRufus

01.29.2012 @ 5:43 AM

It is a weird year, for sure. Only one of my favorites of the year, Tree of Life, is nominated, and it will be lucky to win maybe one award. Ah, well. I’ll be happy for the winners but I’m not invested this year.

By: Jonnybon

01.29.2012 @ 10:50 AM

I guess those of us who don’t understand where Roth is coming from are “insane” then. You really have a way with words, Kris…

By: KristopherTapley

01.29.2012 @ 2:49 AM

Why is everyone acting like Roth is the first fucking person on the planet to make these accusations against the film? Jesus. It’s not a novel criticism to say that “The Artist” is a trifle, Rice Crispies paying homage to muesli, a gimmick stretched thin, a short film riff expanded into a bloated concept piece that loses steam after George Valentin’s film bombs.

I don’t want to “go there,” but is it because Roth’s a girl that you want to act like she’s jumping some unheard gun? Because I’ve written much more damning things about the film than she did here. Hell, I thought she was being nice.

By: HoustonRufus

01.29.2012 @ 5:39 AM

I thought the same thing, but was reluctant to post it. I hope people are treating Roth fairly.

By: Paul Outlaw

01.29.2012 @ 5:56 AM

Kris, it has nothing to do with Roth’s gender, at least not in my case. I’ve defended the film against similar accusations before on this site, and far from being a cheerleader for the film, I’ve also been extremely vocal about my objections to the use of the Vertigo score. I was just irritated by the statement that the film “fails to evoke a deeper visceral or emotional response,” since it (along with the rest of the paragraph) dismisses the experience of countless people who have seen the film. It reads like an objective statement of fact, not an opinion.

By: Brian Toohey

01.29.2012 @ 8:28 AM

Hey, Kris. Well, I guess I didn’t read your review. Then again, if your presented it as your opinion, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. What got me is the way this article was written as if The Artist is a shallow, crappy little trifle of a film that’s allowed to be divertingly pleasant and that’s it, and that this is all a foregone conclusion and stated fact, and everyone in the universe has weighed in on it and we’ve all agreed on this as the definition of the film. Considering it connected emotionally with me, and that it’s my favorite film of the year, the article got under my skin. I would have responded the same way if it was was written that way by you, or Drew, or Greg, or whomever. And normally I’m used to the Academy-nominated films spawning backlash against them, because at the end of the day, nothing can ever live up to that kind of hype. But I guess because The Artist is such a heart-centered, well-meaning, and (for me, at least) emotionally affecting film that I wasn’t expecting to read about someone so casually writing it off. What Paul Outlaw wrote above echoes my sentiments.

By: KristopherTapley

01.29.2012 @ 9:25 AM

Don’t let it get to you, then? I’ll happily state as fact that the film is a trifle, because to me, that’s a fact. Just as it is a fact to you that it’s not. Again, this stuff about “state it as opinion” is so kid gloves and superfluous. It’s quite obvious we’re dealing in subjective strokes here.

By: Roth Cornet

01.29.2012 @ 10:02 AM

I’m confused by these comments. It’s a given that this is my opinion…I’m writing it. I feel like most of us are taught not to use qualifiers such as “in my opinion” as they are redundant and diluting. In any case, I was. Though I’ve actually caught myself slipping into the use occasionally because I dislike being misunderstood. I in no way imagine that I speak for anyone other than myself. I mention that the film has been a large success and I understand that many people are responding to it.

I know it can be frustrating if it feels like someone is dismissing something that you care about, that’s not my intention.

It is my task to state my opinion with clarity. That does not mean I discount the value of anyone else’s experience. And I must confess, I suspect that some would have less of an issue with me delivering my opinion without a ton of equivocation if they happened to agree with me.

In any event, onward.

By: Jonnybon

01.29.2012 @ 10:54 AM

There are many creative ways of letting the reader know it’s your opinion and not a fact.

By: Voland

01.29.2012 @ 12:31 PM

But isn’t a blog per se “stating opinions”? One might say that everything one says is always opinion, personal perception.

By: Paul Outlaw

01.29.2012 @ 4:44 PM

What Jonnybon said. And sure, we are fully aware that it’s your opinion, Roth. The point is, you stated that opinion as an unqualified fact. There’s no need to write “in my opinion.” However, if clarity is your goal, why not finish the sentence and say the film fails to evoke a deeper visceral or emotional response “in this viewer,” “in many viewers,” or simply, “in me”? Or why not go for broke and say “in discerning viewers,” if that’s what is actually meant, given the context? PS. I have never once said in any of my comments in this thread that I didn’t agree with you, by the way, in terms of my own response to the film on an emotional level.

By: Joe7827

01.29.2012 @ 9:43 PM

Okay, let’s get a few things straight.
1) Imagine you’re talking with some friends about “The Artist”. One says it has no depth. Another calls it the most poignant film in years. It’s a discussion, right? Very rarely, in a casual conversation, would you say things like, “in my opinion…” So can we just drop this whole “stating objective opinions as fact” argument? It’s a blog; of course it’s based on people’s opinions.
2) For goodness sake, Kris, CHILL OUT. There are plenty of ways to deflect seemingly hostile comments and turn them into a valuable film discussion. You seem to go into attack mode.
3) Back to, you know, the original article. I actually fell asleep during “The Artist”, so that’s how I feel about it. I’m not even sure I’d go so far as to call it enjoyable and entertaining. I just had a hard time watching a movie where people’s mouths were moving, but I couldn’t understand what they were saying. But I’d gladly admit that it’s charming and difficult to hate.

By: Jonnybon

01.29.2012 @ 11:18 PM

This isn’t a conversation with friends, but I don’t express my opinion as fact to them either, because I’m not arrogant.

By: Voland

01.30.2012 @ 12:56 AM

You’re probably saying NEITHER “In my opinion, this and that..”, NOR “It’s a fact, that..”. See what your problem is? You’re eager to discuss semantics, but as it seems, you do not often know some of the basic concepts of the philosophy of language.

And please don’t waste too many thoughts whether I stated a fact or my opinion.

By: Brian Toohey

02.01.2012 @ 4:00 AM

Roth: here’s the problem. You state “It’s a given that this is my opinion…I’m writing it. I feel like most of us are taught not to use qualifiers such as “in my opinion” as they are redundant and diluting.” If this were a review, I would whole-heartedly agree with you. You could say “this film is a piece of shit,” and if I disagreed with you, we’d agree to disagree. But this is not a review. It’s an introduction of a blooper reel. And my problem is not with your opinion, but with the way its presented as statement of fact, in what should be an objective piece. And in a piece where obviously most of the people who clicked on the link are going to be fans of the film. If you’re going to state an opinion in that format, and in particular one that discounts the film, it would be much better to simply preface it as opinion rather than to state it as if its objective truth. This obviously has had way too much time spent on it as this point, but that’s the reason, I think, people were initially miffed, myself included. At this point, who cares. But perhaps something to consider in the future.

By: Andrej

01.29.2012 @ 3:27 AM

The blooper reel, anyone… ? No? Okay then.

I’ll just say it was a very cute and funny compilation, and considering the movie instantly loses its 1930s theme formalities once the credits roll, it should have been placed during them.

By: alexis

01.29.2012 @ 8:12 AM

this is the most boring thing I’ve ever seen. kind of like the movie is right…. dear god. why would they even release this????

By: Alan

01.29.2012 @ 8:16 AM

There is absolutely nothing outstanding about the artist. has anyone seen WINGS? A Buster Keaton film perhaps? The Artist is a gimmick played out in black and white silent cinema, something a surprising amount of directors actually did beautifully when there was no sound in movies. Why do it again without adding something special to it? It’s cute, it’s not special and it certainly isn’t outstanding. And frankly, the whole thing, including this lame reel looks overacted and gimmicky. One trick pony.

By: Esther

01.29.2012 @ 8:22 AM

I happen to agree with Roth but I would have been a lot stronger in my words. She was polite and fair with a film she clearly likes and appreciates but doesn’t love. It’s obvious she feels its a bit overrated and she’s not alone in that sentiment. Why is everyone going nuts on her? I mean, re-read her piece, it’s totally fair.

By: Brian Toohey

01.29.2012 @ 8:46 AM

The whole problem with it is the way she’s presenting her opinion not as an opinion, but as stated fact. You can’t really say “the movie fails to do such-and-such,” when, in fact, it has successfully done EXACTLY such-and-such for many, many people. The more accurate way to phrase it would be “the movie fails to do such-and-such FOR ME,” or “I fail to see how it does such-and-such.” In a completely opposite example that will also serve as non-sequitur, there’s a Chinese restaurant down the street from me called “OK Chinese Food.” That’s the name of the restaurant. I’ve desperately wanted to go in there for years and tell them they should at least call it Pretty Good Chinese Food and they could probably expect to do more business. And yet, I don’t want to actually go in there. Because it’s named “OK Chinese Food.” Statement becomes opinion, to an unintentional bad end, no less.

By: KristopherTapley

01.29.2012 @ 9:26 AM

Again…oh, fuck it.

By: Voland

01.29.2012 @ 12:24 PM

Brian, these are really semantic games, in other words: language games. and if my english wasn’t so bad, I would love to explain it a bit further. So all I can do is to recommend you (and everybody else) to the works of Wittgenstein. It may be the most important work you’ll ever read.

By: Roth Cornet

01.29.2012 @ 7:12 PM

Thank you Esther.

By: Brian Toohey

02.01.2012 @ 4:02 AM

They’re not semantic games. It has to do with journalistic integrity and presenting your opinion disguised as fact in an objective piece that is not a review.

By: Drood

01.29.2012 @ 2:04 PM

The statement that you believe the success of “The Artist” is somehow more a product of marketing than genuine enthusiasm from most who see the film seems somewhat insulting both to Weinstein and to members of the professional guilds who are thus far unanimous in their acclaim of “The Artist” as the best film of the year, not to mention members of SAG who found the performances of Dujardin, Bejo and company to be outstanding. Your statement suggests that you believe virtually the entire U.S. film industry as individuals to be either incapable of independent thought or craven cowards groveling in submission to a single man. I think you give members of the filmmaking community too little credit and Weinstein (and his marketing team) too much…

By: JJ1

01.29.2012 @ 10:15 PM

I can’t believe there’s so much to do about this article. Roth enjoyed the film highly (it seems), but is within her right to write that she believes it to lack any lasting significance, as well. I don’t see what’s wrong with that.

As for the blooper reel, I thought it was very cute. And … that’s about it.

By: Ellen

01.29.2012 @ 10:23 PM

I think the performances in this film were brilliant. Both Dujardin, Bejo, and all the other actors had to learn to act in a totally different way. Acting for silent film is very different than acting for sound film. They managed to be at once both totally understandable and subtle at the same time. It was a wonderful movie-going experience, and I think both Dujardin and Bejo are completely deserving of the films they are nominated for. This film was an incredible risk, one that no other film was willing to take.

By: Anita

01.30.2012 @ 3:20 PM

I think people’s strong reactions may stem from the fact (or opinion?) that the article’s raison d’etre seems (opinion, not fact) to be a comment on the unworthiness of The Artist as a Best Picture frontrunner (because God knows, the Best Picture frontrunners are always the most substantial, soul-searching and meaningful films of the year) in the guise of presenting a blooper reel. If we get similar articles, featuring blooper reels from Hugo, for example, that then go on to explain how poorly it is written and cast (when it comes to the two young co-stars) and how the only moments of greatness in an over two-hour film are the ones dealing explicitly with Melies and recreating his work (opinion), then those who are unabashed fans of The Artist (and who have been told various times that they are shallow or have never seen a good film in their lives if they think this is a good film), may take less umbrage. Obviously there’s no reason this should be an objective site, because having differing opinions and debating about them is a big reason people are drawn here and other sites in the first place, but I feel like with The Artist, the debate is over before it begins and more than any other film in recent memory, people’s intelligence and taste levels are called into question, which I find unfair. But there’s no reason to personally attack Roth for stating her opinion, and I’m sorry for all the haterade in these comments. It’s very undeserved.

By: petey

05.09.2012 @ 1:04 AM

Yes, thank you. Using a blooper reel as verdict of a movie’s essential substance and totality, is what is suspect – or maybe not, in an op-ed as Roth repeatedly emphasized. Maybe we could have had more civility in calling out each other’s “play”, but that’s beside the point.

Back to the issue at hand (belatedly, if anyone ever cares again):

I would suggest that The Artist offers plenty for those who wish for emotionally resonant engagement, if they so choose. For those this is impossible, I would kindly ask they consider its possibility for others.

Two, rich experiences in acting, viewing, critiquing, and working in the film industry, sometimes binds one to currents and tenets in the zeitgeist in which one operates. Currently, we’re in the post-post-post Method world of acting, where no actor who wants to hold down a job would look to Douglas Fairbanks or even Gene Kelly, over the post-Brando representatives, and the new school of No Pain, No Gain, palpably visceral “depth”. Considering the context of The Artist, it becomes necessary for the Critic to adjust their criteria in comparing its acting style and achievement of “depth”, to those of its award rivals.

The Artist by choice of being a middlebrow silent that wants to serve as gateway to modern audiences (they didn’t expect to recoup 15 million budget plus marketing, from “snobs” who have seen at least 20 silents and read books on a distant historical condition). So right away, you know it’s a self-defeating game slagging its acting by making Falconetti of Joan D’Arc your criteria (which some have staked.) You also know comparing it to Fassbender, Oldman style of acting, is ill-fitting except to champion an age where Oscar for acting should only adhere to the latest advancements and taste-markers of movie acting technique and illusion of “depth” (which is a murky point, since past markers have often been under-esteemed/noticed when they took place in less profiled works: e.g. Guinness in the Tinker-TV version.)

The above blooper does not include any of the “down” moments in The Artist, that more closely resembles the latest currents in acting “tradition” going on today. So it is fairer to ask (than say, simply using the blooper as an exhibit to discredit or champion said movie), what would Fassbender and Oldman (or their compatriots of similar style and tradition), have done differently to handle say, the reaction shots of Artist’s auction scene? Would they have tried interject counterpoint to the editing building up a dramatic rhythm, by different “depth” of gaze and gestures than by Dujardin? How would they have handled interacting with the pawnbroker and Clifton the chauffeur, in the context of a man holding onto appearances of dignity and normalcy, when the reality is anything but an impending trainwreck once the ego meets its maker in crucial triggers? How would they have handled the shift from froth to “dark” in style of early-30s realism?

Asking these pointed questions, especially by those of us with specific experiences and interests in acting, viewing, and working in movies, can encourage more diverse discussion beyond the civil unrest, so to speak.

Thanks for reading (if it indeed happens!)

By: may

01.30.2012 @ 3:21 PM

I guess I am one of those whom the film managed to “evoke a deeper visceral or emotional response” in. Sobbed at certain parts, especially where Valentin refused to abandon what he was used to doing. Found The Artist a lot more moving than the other BP nominees I have seen so far namely The Help and The Descendants. Nearly walked out of the latter for the blatant emotional manipulation right from the start. It was such a poor adaptation of the book.

By: @Roth

05.09.2012 @ 8:01 PM

“ROTH CORNET
By the way, my impressions are my own and subjective but they are also born of five years of acting training, four years of film school and nearly a decade working in this industry. Thanks.
JANUARY 28, 2012 AT 11:02PM EST”

—-
Roth, are you aware De Niro was instrumental in awarding Dujardin’s Cannes prize? The man with decades of acting experience and accolades, claimed he couldn’t pull off such performance. Perhaps working actors who have been in the business of helping to create the illusion of many eras, see that it’s no small feat to evoke an entire era and never come off as contemporaneous as often the case in “costume/period drama”?

And bear in mind, it’s easy to fall into the trap of condemning a performance due to its chosen context of a blend of romcom/dramedy that segues into a slice-of-life approach to personal decline, instead of the familiar awards-grab approach of hardcore, Greek Tragedy-scale of bipolar/psychotic suffering.

In terms of the many “significant themes”, short of the more scholarly approach the rich meta-comments and self-reflexive mirror it holds to the past and present viewers watching it, a starting point would be the insidious ways male ego/pride. It ensures self-destruction, by a well-meaning but misguided paternalistic generosity towards others (potential love, chauffeur, pawnbroker), including his attitude about “future of the industry” (easily cast in generation gap or struggle of fatherly tradition vs. youthful rebellion – a metaphor for every successive generation of filmmaker usurping their predecessors.)